Paper ID #20608

Boosting engineering identity of rising sophomore engineering majors throughservice learning based bridge program

Dr. Deborah Won, California State University, Los Angeles

Deborah Won is an Associate Professor in Electrical and Computer Engineering at California State Uni-versity, Los Angeles. Her specialization is in Biomedical Engineering and her scientific research areafocuses on neuro-rehabilitative technology. Her educational research interests include use of Tablet PCsand technology to better engage students in the classroom as well as pedagogical and advisement ap-proaches to closing the achievement gap for historically under-represented minority groups.

Dr. Gustavo B Menezes, California State University, Los Angeles

Menezes is an Associate Professor in Civil Engineering Department at CalStateLA and president of theInternational Society for Environmental Geotechnology (ISEG). Since becoming part of the faculty in2009, Menezes has taught 9 undergraduate courses, is the current adviser of the American Society ofCivil Engineers student organizations and has participated in several teaching workshops, including one on”Excellence in Civil Engineering Education” and another in ”Enhancing Student Success through a ModelIntroduction to Engineering Course.” He is currently the PI of TUES project to revamp the sophomore-year experience at the college of engineering (esucceed.calstatela.edu). He has developed an open access,web-based audience response system (educatools.com) and is currently the ABET coordinator for hisdepartment. Currently, Dr. Menezes is the Director of First Year Experience (FYrE) at ECST - Cal StateLA.

Prof. Adel A. Sharif, California State University, Los Angeles

After finishing his BS in Mechanical Engineering at California State University, Los Angeles, Adel A.Sharif continued with graduate studies in Materials Science and Engineering at University of California,Irvine. He earned his MS and Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering in 1995 and 1998, respectively.Upon graduation, he accepted a postdoctoral position at Los Alamos National Lab, where he worked ondevelopment of ultra-high temperature structural material among other things. In 2000, he accepted atenure track faculty position at University of Michigan, Flint and stayed there for two year. Finally, hejoined the Department of Mechanical Engineering at California State University, Los Angeles in 2002where he is currently a full professor. Dr. Sharif’s expertise in materials science is in deformation mech-anisms, specifically at high temperatures.

Dr. Gisele Ragusa, University of Southern California

Gisele Ragusa is a Professor of Engineering Education at the University of Southern California. Sheconducts research on college transitions and retention of underrepresented students in engineering andalso research about engineering global preparedness and engineering innovation. She also has researchexpertise in STEM K-12 and in STEM assessment. She chairs USC’s STEM Consortium.

Dr. Arturo Pacheco-Vega, California State University, Los Angeles

Arturo Pacheco-Vega did his undergraduate studies in mechanical and electrical engineering at the Univer-sidad Iberoamericana in Leon, Mexico. His graduate work was at Universidad de Guanajuato in Mexico,and at University of Notre Dame, as a Fulbright scholar, where he obtained his Ph.D. in 2002. From2003 to 2008 he was a faculty member in the Department of Chemical Engineering at the UniversidadAutonoma de San Luis Potosi in Mexico. In 2008 Dr. Pacheco-Vega joined the Department of MechanicalEngineering at California State University, Los Angeles, where he is currently a full professor. His re-search interests are related to the thermal and fluid sciences, and include thermal/energy systems, thermalcontrol, system optimization, soft computing techniques, heat transfer enhancement, nonlinear dynamicalsystems, micro-scale thermal/fluid devices, and biological systems.

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2017

Boosting engineering identity of rising sophomore engineering majors through

service learning based bridge program

1. Abstract

The BOOST program (Bridge Opportunities Offered for the Sophomore Transition) was developed to

strengthen Engineering major students’ professional identity and boost their motivation and

perseverance to persist through the challenge and rigor of the Engineering program. Teams of rising

sophomores, along with junior- or senior-level peer mentors, spent six weeks of their summer

innovating, creating, and working collaboratively on Engineering projects which served their local

community. BOOST partnered with three highly impactful urban service-focused community

organizations - two non-profit organizations and a public elementary school. Despite most BOOST

students being first-generation college students, and no BOOST student having had any previous

engineering design experience prior to participation in the program, the students completed three

substantial design projects which were all very well received by the community partners. Assessment

results indicate that students greatly benefited from participating in design projects, providing service

to their community, working in teams, peer mentorship, and interaction with faculty advisors. Most

noticeably, BOOST students’ engineering innovation and creativity scale increased by 50% (p<.01)

according to pre-post-BOOST comparisons on Ragusa’s ECPII validated scale. In addition, BOOST

students appeared to be more STEM-focused after BOOST than their matched control counterparts.

Furthermore, the BOOST experience appeared to provide some immunity to the typical “sophomore

slump”, as the BOOST group’s GPAs dropped from pre-BOOST (first couple terms of freshmen

year) to post-BOOST (last term of freshman year through their first term of sophomore year) by 49%

less than their matched control group’s average GPA. Taken together, the quantitative results and the

qualitative feedback provided by the community partners indicate that the BOOST experience helped

BOOST students to identify better as engineers and to attain the intrinsic motivation and

innovativeness that breeds successful engineers.

2. Rationale for BOOST – Bridge Opportunities Offered for the Sophomore Transition.

Most universities recognize that the transition from high school to college requires extra support

and therefore offer college summer bridge programs. However, the transition from the freshman

to sophomore year is a critical formational period and yet often neglected in student success

initiatives [1-3]. Their sophomore year is a defining moment in their college career, and also a

time that is filled with uncertainty and a sense of loss of support they had in their freshmen year

[2, 4-6]. The faculty who developed the BOOST program recognized a need for students to gain

more practical exposure to engineering, to experience the engineering design process, and to

strengthen their motivation and resolve to persevere through the challenges that tend to hit them

particularly hard when they reach their first engineering courses, typically in their sophomore

year. We hypothesized that service learning projects during the students’ freshman-to-

sophomore transition would address these needs and thus build engineering identity and improve

their academic performance in their sophomore year, especially for students who start with low

academic integration, which is typical of Cal State LA students matriculating in engineering

majors as freshmen. First generation college students make up 59% of our Engineering student

population, and Hispanic students make up 61%. Studies have shown that the lack of academic

integration of first-generation students is correlated with their lower persistence rates than those

of non-first generation college students [7] and that academic integration, particularly through

faculty interaction, is often lacking but can have a significant positive impact on persistence [7,

8].

Service learning would provide our students with an engineering opportunity applied to not only

a practical project but one with the added motivation of actually seeing the benefit their work can

bring to their community. Studies in non-STEM fields have shown that the focus on giving

through service learning leads to academic success by addressing the sense of aimlessness and

student disengagement that negatively impacts their education [9-11]. Ironically, until recently a

vast majority of the service learning literature was in non-Engineering fields, such as sociology.

The literature shows some very impactful service learning programs in Engineering, such as

Prof. William Oakes’ EPIC program at Purdue University, but which do not specifically target

the fresman-to-sophomore transition [12, 13]. We therefore created a program that begins in the

last term of their freshman year and allows them to work on service learning projects for a local

community organization in the summer. The design projects, with its inevitable need to revisit

design choices, teaches students to learn from mistakes through the iterative process of design,

build, and test and to build grit. It also builds their engineering identity and see themselves more

as real-world problem solvers. The service learning aspect enables students to see the impact of

their engineering abilities on their local community and motivates them to persevere through the

challenges and rigor of engineering degree programs. The teamwork, peer mentorship, and

faculty interaction required to carry out these service learning projects all contribute to building

social capital which in turn enhances students’ ability to thrive, especially for first-generation

college students. Participation in service learning projects was expected to increase academic

integration by building the students’ identity as engineers, and to break down any amotivational

perspective of college by helping students to see the impact their work could have on their

community and how they could contribute to their team’s success and morale.

3. Structure and implementation of BOOST

With administrative support from the University’s Educational Participation in Communities

Center, partnerships were forged with three local community organizations. BOOST faculty

met with leaders (e.g., President, Director of Community Relations, and Assistant Principal)

of each of the community partner organizations to identify projects which would both serve

their organizations’ needs and provide students with an opportunity to practice engineering

design.

In the Winter quarter of 2015, students were recruited from the freshmen class who

matriculated in the College of Engineering, Computer Science, and Technology in Fall 2015;

an orientation was provided just before the start of the Spring quarter. Eighteen students

enrolled in a special section of a required Engineering Ethics course, and at the beginning of

the course, took field trips to the partnering sites. These activities allowed students to

connect with the community partner organizations, understand and delineate project

objectives, and start forming project teams. The BOOST projects provided contexts in which

to apply ethical principles, as well as professional practices, learned in class.

During the summer quarter, students met 5 days a week for at least 4 hours a day. A typical

schedule for the earlier half of the BOOST summer session is outlined in Table 1. More time

was devoted just purely to working on the projects during the latter half of the summer.

Time Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

12:30 -

14:00 Analysis/

Problem Solving

ET C18

Engineering tools

workshops

ET C254

Comm. /

Presentation

Workshop ET

C159

Engineering tools

workshops

ET C254

Analysis/ Problem

Solving

ET C18 14:00-

14:30 Projects

ET C159 14:30 -

15:00

Projects

ET C159

Projects

ET C159

Projects

ET C159

Projects

ET C159 15:00 -

16:15 Outdoor /

Recreation 16:15-

16:30 Reflections

Table 1) Typical weekly schedule during the BOOST summer session.

On the last day of the 6-week summer session, a banquet was held at which time the students

gave oral presentations on their projects. This gave students the opportunity to present their

work to, as well as celebrate the students’ achievements together with, representatives of the

partnering organizations, College and University administrators, and other members of the

College who supported the program operation.

4. Carrying out the design process: Sample student work

The students gained valuable engineering experience by actually carrying out the complete

engineering design process from start to finish. The projects, and the community

organizations for whom we carried out these projects, are described briefly here:

1) Hillsides, a non-profit organization to provide residential care and/or special education to

vulnerable youth, mostly in the foster care system – We built a portable, collapsible stage

which could be used for the Hillsides youth rock band to perform outdoor concerts

around their campus.

2) Kennedy Elementary School, in an socio-economically disadvantaged neighborhood a

mile away from Cal State LA – We created two computer games to encourage their fifth

graders to practice fractions and gain a deeper understanding of fractions.

3) El Arca, a non-profit organization – We built a retractable cover for their patio

community garden.

To illustrate the design process the students experienced, we detail the Hillsides’ groups progress

through each design phase.

4.1. Project definition

Students visited each community partner site, learned about the community’s needs, and

defined their project objectives with guidance from the faculty advisors. The Hillsides team

produced this statement of objectives:

“To build a stage that is portable and safe for the students to engage in events. We must design the

stage in order to enhance the hillsides community's experiences. The stage will be able to allow the

students to further their bonds with their community.”

They also drafted their project specifications.

Specifications

Characteristics /

features

min typ max

Load 700 980 2000

failure stress 2000 n/a 2500

Latches 4

latches

4

latches

6

latches

Wood 90 sqr

ft

100

sqr ft

135

sqr ft

rubber

underlayment

90 sqr

ft

100

sqr ft

135

sqr ft

wood/metal poles 16 16 20

nails 84 84 80

Table 2) first draft of design specifications for Hillsides project

4.2. Conceptual design

Students brainstormed ideas with input from the faculty advisors and performed a trade

analysis of different design options. Pictured below is a sketch of the first design option the

team brainstormed.

Figure 1) Preliminary sketches of one of their brainstormed designs

Preliminary design

Students analyzed each of the most promising designs, making calculations to determine

whether the design met project specifications.

Figure 2) Dimensioning and weight calculations

4.3. Detailed design and implementation

Figure 3) Bottom view of CAD drawing for the selected design.

After iterating through a couple first cuts at building sections of the stage, the students nailed

down a streamlined process of building consistently precise sections of the stage. They also

tested out different hinges and coupling mechanisms for connecting the sections as well as

different types and placement of wheels to make the stage portable.

4.4. Project delivery

Students and faculty tested the various features of the stage (Fig. 5 and 6; collapsible,

portable, and weigh-bearing capacity) and made final tweaks before delivering the stage

to Hillsides.

Figure 5) BOOST

faculty advisor tests

the hinges on the

stage.

5. Assessment

One student had to disenroll early in the program due to personal issues; therefore, assessment

results are provide for the 17 students who actually participated beyond the first two weeks of the

Spring quarter. A control group of 17 students who were in at least the same or higher math level

as the BOOST students and were approximately frequency-matched for major (24% Civil Eng.

majors in both groups, 29 and 35% Mechanical Engineering majors in BOOST vs. control,

Figure 4) Students finalize design and

construct the individual sections of the

stage before the final assembly and

carpeting of the stage.

respectively), first-generation status (53% for BOOST and 59% for control), and ethnicity (76%

Hispanic for both BOOST and control groups). A summary of the descriptive data is provided in

Table 3. The BOOST group had almost 30% more females than the control group, while the

control group on average had greater math aptitude, according to SAT math (SATM) scores.

5.1. Effect on STEM course grades

DESCRIPTIVE DATA OUTCOMES

SATV

score

SAT

M

score

His-

panic

Femal

e

First

Gen.

Colleg

e

Sp'16-

F'16

STEM

GPA

STE

M GPA

(post –

pre)

# post-

boost

STEM

units

BOOS

T 441 493 76% 47% 52.9% 2.93 -0.35 370

Control 446 539 76% 18% 58.8% 2.63 -0.69 178

Table 3) Comparison of BOOST students with a frequency-matched control group.

Grades in any Physics, Math, or engineering (EE, ME, CE) classes were obtained and averaged

across the terms before the BOOST program began – i.e., for Fall ’15 and Winter ’16 (their 1st

two terms of college) to yield what we call their “pre-BOOST STEM GPA”. Similarly, we also

averaged their grades for those STEM classes in the terms following the start of BOOST (i.e., for

Spring through Fall ’16). We also tallied up the total number of units in these STEM classes that

all the students in each group took in the post-BOOST period. A couple interesting results

emerge from these results: 1) BOOST students seemed to become much more STEM-centric,

and took more than twice as many units on average than their non-BOOST counterparts. 2)

There was a drop in GPA from their first couple terms in their freshmen year to their latter terms

which begin to include engineering major degree courses. This drop is characteristic of the

sophomore slump, and exists in both groups. However, despite the heavier STEM load and

despite being at a lower math level and aptitude than the control group, the BOOST students’

GPA did not drop as much as the control group; in fact, the control group’s GPA on average

dropped by nearly twice as much as the BOOST group’s.

Figure 6) Some of

the student

members of the

Hillsides team

completed some

last modifications

and demonstrate

the ability to

collapse the stage

so that it could be

easily stored.

5.2. Engineering Creativity and Propensity for Innovation Index

A questionnaire measuring Ragusa’s validated Engineering Creativity and Propensity for

Innovation Index, Engineering Global Preparedness, and College Social Capital [14, 15] was

administered to the BOOST students at the beginning of the Spring quarter just after the program

orientation (“pre-BOOST”) and at the conclusion of the BOOST program just after the final

presentations (“post-BOOST”). None of the students had had engineering project experience

prior to BOOST. Figure 6 illustrates the change in average score from pre- to post-BOOST

experience. While the BOOST students started the program well below national average in

engineering innovation and creativity as well as college social capital, the average score

increased with statistical significance on all 3 scales, with the largest gain in engineering

innovation and creativity.

Figure 6) The average index for engineering innovation and creativity increased by 50%, engineering global

preparedness by 6%, and college social capital by 39%. * significantly different from pre-score, p<.01

5.3. Impact on community

All three community partners expressed appreciation and enthusiasm for not only the value

added by the projects the BOOST students delivered, but also for the interaction and engagement

the BOOST students had with their community. The teachers at the elementary school expressed

gratitude for the way the BOOST students served as a role model for their 5th graders. The

Hillsides Education Center Specialist, and Director of the Hillsides Band expressed great

enthusiasm when the stage was delivered, saying “Thank you so much to you and your team for

your hard work in building the stage. It is awesome!!”

The President of El Arca stated addressed the BOOST students after their final presentations:

“Above and beyond what engineering experience you are gaining… the long-term value is what

you're doing for the community... for folks w/ developmental disabilities. This has turned out to

be a great, great project. It's giving them the ability to build up more self-esteem, and giving

them a vocational skill…. This is something that you really can't place a value on…. [You] come

in with so much energy. …You can tell you’re on fire, [you] want to do this… The Cal State LA

students were awesome”.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Eng.

Innovation/Creativity

Eng. Global Prep. College Social Cap.

Pre BOOST Experience Post BOOST Experience

**

*

All three community partners expressed a desire to continue partnering with the BOOST

program this year.

5.4. What the students valued about BOOST

A focus group interview was conducted during the 5th (or second to last) week of the summer

session. The responses are summarized in Table 4.

Category Freq

.(%)

Examples

Team

Experiences 14

(30.4) Our mentors they are like telling us, you guys need to work in groups,

and I understand cause me as an electrical engineer, I cannot do the

stuff that civil or the mechanical would do. But l could, let’s say a civil

engineer would build a building. And me as an electrical engineer, I

would be the one to wire the building.” “So, it’s a good thing to be able to go out of the box. Out of the box of

electrical engineering in my team.”

Engineering

Design 9

(19.6) “I think the design part was just right. Because, I mean the mentors

explained to us when you’re doing engineering, your first design

isn’t always going to be the right one. And that way we kind of got

to see you know it’s a process. You’re going to have to make

adjustments.”

Application

of

Engineering

Technical

Skills

9

(19.6) “It’s good cause uh just like what she said we are able to uh

experience the hands on engineering project. Cause you know um in

other classes we just did like in inside the classroom. “ “I haven’t even taken physics yet, but we’re.. I’m learning it through

the hands on process, and you get to learn um… kind of how the

information you’re learning in class is going to be applied in to the

real life situation.” “I think as far as physics.. like taking physics. I feel like it will give

you like a better understanding cause you see like in real time how

forces kind of.. what you’re kind of noticing.”

Service

Learning/Co

mmunity

Experience

7

(15.2) “The project it’s not just for us but, we were able to use what we

learned to help other people.” “Right, it’s a cool place to work. You can see that you can really help

people. “

Mentorship/

Faculty

Guidance

5

(10.9) “Just by telling us, like their stories and how they got over, and just

always helping each other. Like if we were.. like in the physics… if

we’re like stuck on something. Like they’ll take their time to actually

explain every step by step. Making us feel like we’re at home.“ “

Ethics 2

(4.3) “Ethics came out in working at the sites. You have to be people first in

designing things and listen to your customers.” Table 4) The students’ responses during the focus group interviews indicated six of the most valued aspects of the

program.

In addition, during the Q&A after final presentations, students provided some insight into the value they

perceived in a program like BOOST. For example, one student, while reiterating the value of getting to

actually experience the design process, pointed out that one key aspect of that experience is inevitably

finding mistakes and iterating through multiple designs; i.e., learning from your mistakes.

"The best thing we learned is since we are doing the engineering major, really we came to realize the whole process

of actually doing all the engineering and realizing how even though we mentioned the design process was the first

week, really we came to realize that the design process takes all throughout and is about improving the first design.

And if there is a flaw, making adjustments to fix it and come up with a solution."

One student divulged the fear she felt as a female student entering the program, but indicated a palpable

increase in self-efficacy:

“As a girl, I have more confidence, even though in a male-dominated major… I know in the beginning I was really

intimidated. There were only 2 girls here…. THIS helped me to get a lot of engineering experience. I'll be more

prepared.”

6. Conclusion

The BOOST students, a majority of whom are first generation college students and most of whom are

from underrepresented minority groups, entered the program underprepared for their engineering

major degree programs in terms of math level and below national average on a validated engineering

innovation scale. Motivated by the societal impact they could see themselves making, BOOST

students devoted half days for 6 weeks of the summer in addition to an hour a week during the spring

quarter to engineering service projects and introductory workshops on computer aided design,

computer programming, microcontrollers, as well as materials science and physics. Not only did

students reap the benefits of exposure to engineering tools that they will likely need to use throughout

their college education and on into their professional career, they also deepened their motivation and

confidence to persevere through the inevitable challenges they will face on their road to earning a

bachelor’s degree in Engineering. The community partners were all very pleased with the BOOST

students’ work and touched by their desire to give back to their community. As the BOOST students

learned to work in groups and how to solve real engineering problems, they also built their own

resilience and increased their ability to innovate. The quantitative results support the conclusion that

can be drawn from qualitative analysis; namely, that BOOST, with its engineering design service

project focus, bolstered the students’ identity as engineers, enabling them to weather the storm that

comes with the freshmen-to-sophomore transition.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by NSF Contract #DUE-1505087 and CSULA’s Instructionally Related

Activities funding. The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the vital logistical and fiscal

support of Hasmik Simon, Evelyn Li, Jonathan Marquez, Lin Tong, Alexis Barajas, and Ted Nye, as

well as to recognize the work of Yusuke Kuroki and Dr. Michele Dunbar from Institutional Research

to provide data for our analysis. We also thank Blake Cortis and Dan Roberto for their technical

support and training in the workshop; Victoria Mosqueda, Erica Martinez, Anh Hong, and Taffany

Lam for the roles they played in establishing partnerships with our community organizations.

References

1. Hunter, M.S., et al., Helping sophomores succeed: Understanding and improving the second-year

experience. 2010, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

2. Gardner, E.D., From drift to engagement: Finding purpose and making connections in the

sophomore year, in Visible solutions for invisible students, L.A. Schreiner and J. Pattengale,

Editors. 2000.

3. Gahagan, J. and M.S. Hunter, The second-year experience: Turning attention to the academy's

middle children. About Campus, 2006. 11(3): p. 17-22.

4. Lipka, S., After the freshman bubble pops. Chronicle of Higher Education, 2006. 53(3): p. 42.

5. Boivin, M.J., G. Fountain, and B. Baylis, Sophomore slump or sophomore shipwreck? A crisis of

meaning and purpose for students in American higher education. , in Visible Solutions for

Invisible Students: Helping Sophomores Succeed., J. Pattengale and L.A. Schreiner, Editors.

2000, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition,

University of South Carolina Press: Columbia, SC.

6. Seaver, S., The Sophomore Slump: A careers course to address the needs of second-year

students: candi.wikispaces.umb.

7. Próspero, M. and S. Vora-Gupta, First-generation college students: motivation, integration, and

academic achievement. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 2007. 31(12).

8. Choy, S., Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary access, persistence, and

attainment (NCES 2001-126). , 2001, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics: Washington, DC.

9. Howells, K.G., Teaching Gratitude in Education. SensePublishers, 2012: p. 125-141.

10. Gray, M.J., Ondaatje, E. H., Fricker, R., Geschwind, S., Goldman, C. A., Kaganoff, T., Robyn,

A., and M. Sundt, Vogelgesang, L., & Klein, S. P, Coupling Service and Learning in Higher

Education: The Final Report of the Evaluation of the Learn and Serve America, Higher

Education Program. . 1998: The RAND Corporation.

11. Astin, A.W. and L.J. Sax, How Undergraduates are Affected by Service Participation. Journal of

College Student Development, 1998. 39(3): p. 251-263.

12. Oakes, W. Service-Learning Partnerships: Improving Education and Addressing Community

Needs. in American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference. 2011. Vancouver,

B.C.

13. Tsang, E., Projects That Matter: Concepts and Models for Service-Learning in Engineering.

AAHE's Series onService-Learning in the Disciplines. 2000, Washington, D.C.: American

Association for Higher Education.

14. Ragusa, G. Engineering creativity and propensity for innovative thinking in undergraduate and

graduate students. in American Society for Engineering Education. 2011. American Society for

Engineering Education.

15. Menold, M.J., et al., A critical review of measures of innovativeness. age, 2014. 24: p. 1.